wassenaar10

You ought to read that article, since this definitely isn't whataboutism.

And yet, it's white people who are allegedly the "fragile" ones.

> America also became a major economic engine of the world by exerting control over people's bodies without paying them.

The actual economic data doesn't support that. Slaves were never more than 17% of the population, slavery was only ever legal in certain regions, and use of slaves was mostly relegated to a subset of agricultural labor. Moreover, slavery was outlawed in 1865 and the United States would not be considered an "economic engine of the world" until at least the 1880s, and it would not be considered one for its agricultural output but for its industrialized economy.

Furthermore, countries in the new world (e.g. Haiti, Brazil, that practiced slavery for longer and on a larger scale failed to develop strong economies anywhere to the degree that the United States did, so the line from "had slavery in the past" to "became economically prosperous" is tenuous. In fact, slave labor (and adjacent systems like serfdom) historically tends to hamper economic growth, prevent industrialization, and stifle innovation.

The South was already set back economically before the civil war. The plantation chattel slavery system hampered industrialization in the Southern US very much in the same way that the serf-owning nobility system hampered industrialization in the Russian Empire. The South, in turn, ultimately lost the American civil war because the northern states were far more industrialized.

Nobody was killed by any of the rioters.

The listing of every native American group that's ever occupied the place is comical to me.

All of world history involves the push and pull of various groups competing for land and resources. Somehow we're supposed to treat every single one of the hundreds of pre-Columbian peoples who occupied North America with a sort of reverence like they were the only rightful inhabitants of the continent. Even though these hundreds of groups fought amongst each other for land and resources before and after the arrival of Europeans. Every single major conflict in North America since 1492 (including the American civil war) has seen Native groups fighting on both sides - because they were people with agency and not monolithic in their views and interests.

Do people in other parts of the world act like this? When a conference is held in conference in Turkey, is it important to mention that the area was previously controlled by Mongols, Seljuk Turks, Christian Greeks, Romans, Hellenic Greeks, Persians, Assyrians, Luwians, Hittites, Hattians, etc. ?

The performance overhead of multiprocessing is pretty high, to the point that you really have to take care to ensure that whatever problem you're solving with multiprocessing is large and parallel enough to justify it, otherwise your multiprocessing solution may very well be slower than your single-process one.

That's not to say it's useless, it's a nice tool to have in the standard library, but if you're coming from one of the many mainstream programming languages with lightweight threading libraries which make it much easier to take advantage of parallelism it's easy to get frustrated at both python's standard threading and multiprocessing libraries for their respective shortcomings, at least in their CPython implementations.

Interesting. But seeing as the US population in 1910 was about 92 million vs 330 million in 2020, it doesn't say a whole lot about comparative severity of the two pandemics.

No real response but oversimplification/staw-manning will do just fine, huh?

Are you trying to say that the situation in Europe is just "business as usual" or something?

Now I don't know if you've been paying attention these last few years, but in case you're not aware European countries have taken in a pretty unprecedented number of migrants over the last decade. Many of those migrants were/are young men from regions with cultural norms that are fundamentally different from the European countries that they end up in. In addition, many of these migrants lack strong proficiency in the standard language of the host country, and do not possess a level of education that would generally be commensurate with their age in the host country. Note that none of this is meant as a value judgement, it's just the reality of the situation. It's not an easy situation for the migrant or for the administration of the countries taking them in. It's not really any secret that integration/assimilation has failed in many parts of Europe, and this all has consequences.

With regards to gun violence, I don't know about Europe in General but Sweden's rate of gun homicides has risen consistently every year over the last decade. Obviously the numbers are nothing compared to what you'd see in the United States, but if the problem is getting worse, then it's probably worth talking about. Also, for a highly-developed Western country, Sweden experiences a large number of hand-grenade attacks every year in a pattern that also seems to be increasing.

But the main cause of violence tends to be organized crime, and as seen by the murder of Peter R De Vries earlier this year, a lot of European police agencies are simply not cut out to deal with organized crime in their current state.

Europeans discover that the continent is not made of magic dirt that assimilates migrants into your society upon entry.

Europeans also discover that weapons restrictions only go so far when you have active organized criminal groups with the initiative and contacts necessary to smuggle firearms and grenades into Western/Northern Europe from a number of regions (Ex-Yugoslavia, Albania, former Soviet Union, North Africa, etc.) that are only a car-ride or fishing boat trip away.